Here’s the new US Air Force commercial….
Now, name the individual or individuals who are NOT in this ad! After completion, partake of The Overnight Open Thread!
Here’s the new US Air Force commercial….
Now, name the individual or individuals who are NOT in this ad! After completion, partake of The Overnight Open Thread!
Cross them at you’re peril!
Former US President Bill Clinton and his wife ex-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attend the swearing-in ceremony of Terry McAuliffe as Virginia’s governor in Richmond, Virginia in January. Photo: Reuters
Washington: Hillary and Bill Clinton keep a detailed “hit list” of everyone who has crossed them during more than 20 years at the apex of American politics, a new book has claimed.
The list of so-called “sinners and saints” – including John Kerry, now secretary of state, and the late Ted Kennedy – was compiled on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet in the dying days of Mrs Clinton’s failed bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.
The alleged “cheat sheet” of betrayals – and there were many that year – ranked offenders on a scale from one to seven and was compiled by aides to give the Clintons an instant database of those who deserved political favour, and those who did not.John Kerry: on the Clintons’ list. Photo: AFP. He SERVED in Vietnam.
“Almost six years later, most Clinton aides can still rattle off the names of traitors and the favours that had been done for them then provide details of just how each of the guilty had gone on to betray the Clintons as if it all had happened just a few hours before,” wrote the authors of HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton.Advertisement
The Clintons have a reputation in Washington for long memories but the existence of a digital “favour book” raises questions about how Mrs Clinton, now 66, might conduct another run at the presidency in 2016. The book paints a picture of how wounding and dispiriting the 2008 campaign was for the Clintons as leading Democrats deserted them for Barack Obama, whose instant celebrity trumped years of hard networking and their own established pre-eminence as the most powerful double act in Democrat politics.
“The injuries and insults were endless, and each blow hurt more than the last, the cumulative effect of months and months of defections,” wrote the authors Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes.
Among those rated as a “7″ for most disloyal were Mr Kerry, who endorsed Mr Obama as a man who could “help restore our moral authority” and – even more devastating – Kennedy, who designated Mr Obama as the heir-apparent to his brother John F Kennedy.
Another huge betrayal for Mrs Clinton, as she ran to become the first female US president, was the decision of Claire McCaskill, a senior Missouri senator, to become the first significant female figure to endorse Mr Obama. Senator MacCaskill, who has endorsed Mrs Clinton for 2016, gave a television interview crediting Mr Clinton as a “great leader” before adding “I don’t want my daughter near him”, a remark that inspired rage among the Clintons and their aides.
Political strategists were divided over whether the portrayal of Mrs Clinton and her entourage as vindictive would damage her 2016 chances.
A Republican strategist who asked not to be named said the image was an obvious attack motif for Republicans in 2016.
“There’s a pretty solid understanding that you don’t mess with the Clintons because they are retributive, take a lot of stuff personally and will basically break your legs when you’re not looking,” he said.
Democrats were more sanguine, arguing that such political gossip was of interest to a only tiny class of political insiders and would have little impact on the campaign trail. “It may be titillating but it is not important,” a former staffer in the Clinton White House told London’s The Daily Telegraph. “But it is also typical of the way the Clinton operation has functioned in the post-presidency period. They have been vindictive and difficult.
“It’s the thing about the Clinton world that is the most dispiriting. It has always been baffling and troubling that they have operated with such a level of animus toward people that they should remain friends with.”
Clinton insiders told the authors it was wrong to paint Mrs Clinton as “Nixon in a pantsuit”, while another long-time adviser said it was “absurd” to suggest the Clintons’ decisions were ruled by a hit list, but did not deny its existence.
Can you imagine any time between 1937 and 1945 a Japanese flag flying over any site in America? An Islamic flag in front of the World Trade Center in 1997 (four years after Muslims tried to bring down the WTC down) presaged the Ramadan dinners, the “Islam is a religion of peace” pablum that is a part of the staple of American political culture. The sycophancy of the American presidency and the political elites regarding Islam is nauseating. I do recall Mohammad T. Mehdi from the 1970′s and 80′sm he was a loudmouthed rabble rouser.
by Daniel Greenfield
“A flag bearing a crescent and star flies from a flagpole in front of the World Trade Center, next to a Christmas tree and a menorah.”—New York Times, 1997
In 1997, Mohammed T. Mehdi, the head of the Arab-American Committee and the National Council on Islamic Affairs, lobbied to have a crescent and star put up at the World Trade Center during the holiday season. His wish was granted, despite the fact that he had been an adviser to Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman also known as the Blind Sheikh.
In the name of diversity and political correctness, an adviser to the religious leader behind the World Trade Center bombing, was allowed to plant an Islamic symbol of conquest in the very place that had been bombed.
Long before the Ground Zero Mosque was even a twinkle in the eye of a violent ex-waiter and aslumlord Imam, the World Trade Center allowed Mohammed T. Mehdi to bully it into flying the symbol of Islam.
By 1997, Mohammed T. Mehdi had become an unambiguously ugly public figure. He had been fired by Mayor Dinkins in 1992 for anti-Semitic remarks. The year before he had proclaimed that, “Millions of Arabs believe Saddam stands tall having defied Western colonialism”.
In 1995, the US Attorney’s Office in New York had listed Mehdi as an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of Sheikh Rahman. Mehdi had already published a book titled “Kennedy and Sirhan: Why?”, which contended that Robert Kennedy’s assassin had been acting in self-defense.
Because of Mehdi’s role in actively working on behalf of the Sheikh behind the wave of terrorism that included the original attack on the World Trade Center, turning down his request should have been a no-brainer. Instead in the winter of 1997 there was an Islamic star and crescent at the World Trade Center. And another one at the park in front of the White House.
Four years before the September 11 attacks; both targets had already been marked.
The previous year had marked the first annual Ramadan dinner at the State Department, integrating the Islamic celebration into the Clinton Administration’s schedule of events. Bill Clinton had not visited the World Trade Center after the bombing, but he did make time for Ramadan.
A month after 9/11, Bush went Clinton one better when he became the first president to host a Ramadan dinner at the White House. Many of the Muslim ambassadors at the event were representing countries that helped finance Al Qaeda. Little more than a month after September 11, the President of the United States sat down to break bread with the money men behind the attacks.
The Star and Crescent flying at the World Trade Center did not prevent it from being targeted in a second greater attack four years later. Nor did the Ramadan dinners keep the plane headed for the White House at bay. It took the self-sacrifice of its American passengers to do that. Instead every gesture of appeasement only seemed to make it worse.
No one who understood what had happened at the World Trade Center in 1993, would have permitted a banner associated with its attackers to be flown there. But while the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, let Mehdi have his way with the World Trade Center, other Muslims were working to carry out Sheikh Abdel-Rahman’s agenda for a war on America and the free world.
While the Star and Crescent was blowing in the cold December wind coming off the Hudson River, an even colder wind was blowing out of Hamburg, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. A year earlier Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had come up with the idea and presented it to Osama bin Laden. A year later the operation began to move forward.
While Secretary of State Albright was holding her Ramadan dinners, other Ramadan dinners were being held out of sight at which more substantive events were being discussed.
While the US was busy bombing Yugoslavian civilians in order to create a separatist Muslim state for KLA terrorists; Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were recruiting the first of the 9/11 hijackers. While the United States tried to appease Muslims, Muslims plotted to murder Americans.
In 1997, the New York Daily News wrote an upbeat story about Mehdi’s Star and Crescent, which envisioned Islam blending merrily into the holiday season.
New York may seem a little brighter this holiday season as the glowing Muslim crescent and star symbol nudges its way onto a seasonal landscape of Christmas trees, menorahs and Kwanzaa candles.
Watch out, ho, ho, ho-ing Santas you might get drowned out by cheery folks yelling, “Allahu akbar!”
Four years later, cheery folks yelling “Allahu Akbar” had filled downtown Manhattan with ashen snow and brightened it with the flames of the burning towers of the World Trade Center.
The 9/11 hijackers left behind notes which said among other things, “Shout, ‘Allahu Akbar,’ because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers”.
If there were any Santas on those planes, they were certainly drowned out by the cries of “Allah Akbar”. And if that didn’t drown them out, having their throats being slit by the cheery folks with box cutters surely did.
“It would be like a gift for somebody,” a police officer said, who was spending his holiday searching through the debris. A gift for the infidels from Islam.
While Muslims were stuffing their faces in November of 2001, Americans were mourning their dead. While Abdul, Mohammed and Raisa were picking through their lamb stew, Americans were picking up the pieces of their loved ones. But it was they who were told to be sensitive to Muslim concerns.
From Pakistan, Musharraf urged the US to suspend bombing his Taliban allies during Ramadan. In the name of sensitivity. New York City schools were making arrangements for Muslim prayers out of “heightened sensitivity to Muslim concerns after the Sept. 11 attack”. Instead of Americans being on the receiving end of “heightened sensitivity”, the ideology that had conspired to murder them was.
On the 9th anniversary of 9/11, Islam had another gift for New Yorkers. Having bought up a building damaged in their own attack, they plotted to set up a grand mosque near Ground Zero. Another gift to New Yorkers from the religion that kept on giving. Another Crescent and Star.
The same people who did not learn the lesson in 1997, and allowed the Crescent and Star to fly at the World Trade Center, were eager to let the Ground Zero Mosque go forward in the name of tolerance. But despite the Crescent and Star, appeasement proved to be no defense.
3,000 died on 9/11 because American leaders preferred to appease, rather than confront. And we are still busy appeasing, like never before.
Allah Akbar and Ho, Ho, Ho.
Read the rest – Allah Akbar and Ho, Ho, Ho
Somehow I’ll bet that the Obama’s are not exactly the most generous charity givers out there.
by Bret Stepens
In the same week that Pope Francis was named Time’s Person of the Year, word arrived of the charitable contributions made by the Jane Fonda Foundation. Grand total for the years 2007 to 2011: zero dollars. The last time Ms. Fonda’s Foundation made a charitable gift, reports the Smoking Gun website, was in 2006, to the tune of $1,000.
The Foundation itself has $800,000 in assets. Ms. Fonda’s representatives insist she’s made larger gifts, particularly through her family foundation, which in 2011 made about $350,000 in contributions from $7.2 million in net assets. But even that’s not quite 5%, the legal minimum required to remain a private foundation.
Ms. Fonda isn’t exactly the world’s first cheapskate limousine liberal: Think of Bill Clinton claiming a tax deduction for donating his underwear, or the $353 Al Gore gave to charity in 1997. But the contrast between Francis and Fonda is worth pondering as liberals cheer—and conservatives try, uneasily, to explain or ignore—the pope’s recent denunciation of economic concepts championed by this newspaper.
Here is what the pope wrote in his 50,000-word apostolic exhortation, published last month:
Two thoughts. First, I’m glad the only economics ministry the pope runs is the Vatican’s. The trickle-down theories he simplistically denounces have done more to bring people out of poverty than any government program or charitable institution in history, including the Church.
Second, I don’t begrudge Francis his views. After a life of tending to the poor in the villas miserias of Buenos Aires, he’s earned them. The same can’t be said for Ms. Fonda, Mr. Clinton, Mr. Gore—or, for that matter, Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren and other high priests of liberal cant and leftist hypocrisy.
Has Sen. Warren ever been offered a meal in a slum she feared would make her sick, but eaten it in simple gratitude for the gesture? Just wondering.
Francis also electrifies because he seems to understand that it is not enough to account for the Church’s moral failings by citing St. Paul’s line about holding “this treasure in jars of clay.” Catholic ministers can be sinners like the rest of us, but the Church’s jars of clay need not be stuffed with a German bishop’s $20,000 bath tub, or by a Vatican Bank that is a model for the corruption Francis denounces in his exhortation, or by cardinals who denounce the “grotesque subversion” of homosexuality right until the moment they own up to making passes at priests and seminarians.
In other words, he knows that personal example matters, both in its own right and especially when it comes to persuasion. Can the same be said of Harry Reid exempting members of his staff from ObamaCare coverage? Or Al Gore living in a mansion that in 2007 consumed 12 times more electricity than the average neighborhood home and later selling Current TV to the government of Qatar? Or Sen. Warren earning hundreds of thousands of dollars by defending Travelers Insurance and other corporate giants in class-action suits? Or columnists who declaim against the dangers of income and social inequality while enjoying tenured jobs at Ivy League schools?
Yes, we know that Al bought indulgences—aka carbon offsets—for his Nashville manse, and that Qatar, with the world’s highest per capita carbon footprint, just happened to be the right buyer for his failing channel. We also know that Harry just “followed the law” that he helped craft and nobody else can understand, and the former Cherokee Indian was just doing what lawyers do, and the former Enron adviser never apologizes for anything. [.......]
The world will always have its share of hypocrites in high places, and Lord knows conservatives aren’t exempt. Still, liberals wondering what went wrong for them politically this season should look beyond the technical and managerial incompetence and the flaws in the policy design. The people who represent liberalism today are an unattractive bunch. They need their own Francis, leading their own moral renewal. Barack Obama isn’t it.
Read the rest – Of Jane Fonda and Pope Francis
Remembering back to the 1996 Democrat National Convention, Hillary Clinton, in an impassioned plea to defend the honor of her husband, a man with such obvious character and class, that when he had the 19 year old intern alone in his office, he penetrated her only with the tip of his expensive cigar and not with any actual part of his own anatomy. Hillary, in that shrill tone that only she and the mythical creature known as a banshee can achieve, alluded to something she labeled as, “The Mean Republican Attack Machine.” She also told tales of the, “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.” Being a member in good standing on the political right myself, I must say that I’ve not received my invitation to the secret meetings of the conspirators yet, and gentle persons, I would love to participate.
Against that backdrop, and to place context on this continuing labeling of all things right of center as either evil, stupid, senile, or crazy, remember what happened to Sarah Palin after the 2008 Presidential Election. Four people, none of whom had ever lived in Alaska prior to 2008, nor had even visited Alaska, moved in, and in January of 2009, filed so many ethics complaints against Governor Palin that she was forced to resign. Defending herself and her family against the sheer number of charges and complaints became a full time job in itself. when the dust settled of course, not one allegation was found to have had any basis in reality, and the four operatives of the Democrat Party promptly ended their residence in Alaska.
There are two things to note here. First, if Sarah Palin were really an idiot, as the game of categorize the Republican had labeled her, why the need to destroy her in this fashion? I should think the Democrats would have welcomed her with open arms as an adversary. Claire McCaskill as you’ll recall, actually donated large amounts of money and resources to the campaign of one Todd Aiken during his primary run for the Missouri Senate Seat in 2012. Secondly, the injury was not to Governor Palin alone. The injury also occurred to the people of Alaska who had their legitimate choice for their Governor vetoed by the Democrat Party. She was chased from her office because she dared to stand up and oppose their agenda. The rest of the nation also suffered an injury when this tactic proved successful, as it has served to encourage repeat of this behavior.
From the Wall Street Journal Article linked to above:
Americans learned in the IRS political targeting scandal that government enforcement power can be used to stifle political speech. Something similar may be unfolding in Wisconsin, where a special prosecutor is targeting conservative groups that participated in the battle over Governor Scott Walker’s union reforms.
In recent weeks, special prosecutor Francis Schmitz has hit dozens of conservative groups with subpoenas demanding documents related to the 2011 and 2012 campaigns to recall Governor Walker and state legislative leaders.
Copies of two subpoenas we’ve seen demand “all memoranda, email . . . correspondence, and communications” both internally and between the subpoena target and some 29 conservative groups, including Wisconsin and national nonprofits, political vendors and party committees. The groups include the League of American Voters, Wisconsin Family Action, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, Americans for Prosperity—Wisconsin, American Crossroads, the Republican Governors Association, Friends of Scott Walker and the Republican Party of Wisconsin.
One subpoena also demands “all records of income received, including fundraising information and the identity of persons contributing to the corporation.” In other words, tell us who your donors are.
The kitchen-sink subpoenas deserve skepticism considering their subject and targets. The disclosure of conservative political donors has become a preoccupation of the political left across the country. In the heat of the fight over Governor Walker’s reforms, unions urged boycotts of Walker contributors and DemocraticUnderground.com published a list of Walker donors for boycotting.
The subpoena demand for the names of donors to nonprofit groups that aren’t legally required to disclose them is especially troubling. Readers may recall that the Cincinnati office of the IRS sent the tax-exempt applications of several conservative groups to the ProPublica news website in 2012.
The subpoenas don’t spell out a specific allegation, but the demands suggest the government may be pursuing a theory of illegal campaign coordination by independent groups during the recall elections. If prosecutors are pursuing a theory that independent conservative groups coordinated with candidate campaigns during the recall, their goal may be to transform the independent expenditures into candidate committees after the fact, requiring revision of campaign-finance disclosures and possible criminal charges.
Perhaps the probe will turn up some nefarious activity that warrants this subpoena monsoon and home raids. But in the meantime the effect is to limit political speech by intimidating these groups from participating in the 2014 campaign. Stifling allies of Mr. Walker would be an enormous in-kind contribution to Democrats. Even if no charges are filed, the subpoenas will have served as a form of speech suppression.
Mr. O’Keefe told us that the flurry of subpoenas “froze my communications and frightened many allies and vendors of the pro-taxpayer political movement in Wisconsin and across the country.” Even if no one is ever convicted of a crime, he says, “the process is the punishment.”
Evil does not begin to describe what is happening in Wisconsin. If you want to discuss voter suppression, here’s your chance. The voters in Wisconsin twice elected their current leadership within the last 3 years. This is the second time that the Democrats have gone after Scott Walker with this very tactic, and yet, the will of the Wisconsin electorate means nothing to them. Their vote in Wisconsin is worthy of nothing more than being suppressed. The unmitigated gall of those people, voting for someone other than the chosen Marxist apparatchiks selected to be their leaders by party central.
For what ever reason, they are fighting harder and more vigorously in Wisconsin than anywhere else. These are the lengths that they are willing to go to in order to seize power, and God help us all if they are successful in seizing any more than what they currently have. Those of us on the right have a goal that is to convince people that we are right, and to win that battle in the arena of ideas. The goal of the political left is to destroy any and all competing view points and to do away with any semblance of an opposition party. Either we figure out a way to unite and save our country, and do this quickly, or our nation will have been fundamentally transformed into something that no longer has any chance of resembling the bastion of free enterprise and self determination that we have all known and wish to see again.
Many people believe that Bill Clinton created and perfected the art of the Friday News Dump. For those who are unaware of what the Friday News Dump is, it’s a political tactic where important information is released to the public late Friday afternoon after the regular news cycle has concluded. It assures that whatever important news is being dumped gets ignored because of the well documented tendency of American’s to quit paying attention over the weekend.
The truth is, it was not Bill Clinton who invented the Friday News dump, nor did he perfect it. The trend for American’s to quit paying attention to the news over the weekend was first noticed and documented by the Nielsen Ratings Agency way back in the 1950′s. Arthur Nielsen was a statistician and market analyst who created a statistical model of American radio listening habits in the 1920′s for a number of major advertising agencies. The statistical model he created was used to determine when the best time for various product placement ads was.
As a corollary, his statistical model also told when the worst possible time for ad placement was. This negative corollary found it’s first true application during the mid to late 1950′s when the major News outlets had to release bad news regarding the Korean War. As unpopular as the Korean War was back in the late 50′s, America had not yet become a anti-War nation. The anti-war protest environment that plagued the Vietnam War was still a decade off. Every Presidential administration from Dwight D Eisenhower forward has taken advantage of the statistical model created by Arthur Nielsen.
While Bill Clinton did not create or perfect the Friday News Dump, he was without a doubt the First American President to have an ally in the Mainstream Media whom he could count on to ignore important news events that his administration wanted ignored. While previous Presidents such as John F Kennedy had enjoyed an unusually cooperative mainstream media, they were still subject to actual real investigative journalism. Which meant that if they dumped something into the Friday News Dump void, there was always a very real chance that some hot shot reporter trying to make a name for himself would dig it out and run with it Monday morning.
As much cooperation as Bill Clinton received from the Mainstream Media in this particular endeavor, it was literately nothing at all compared to the criminal conspiracy with which the media has cooperated with the Obama administration in turning the Friday News Dump into a gigantic information Black Hole.
One of the interesting things about properly constructed statistical models is, that the more information they contain, the more the statistical model tells you. While Nielsens original model was designed to tell advertising agencies when the best time for product placement was, the constant accumulation of data also began painting another picture. It also began telling about market saturation and declining return periods. In other words, it told the advertising agencies when a product advertising campaign had over saturated the market and people began to ignore the advertising.
Eventually it became possible to model saturation and over saturation points. Place this statistical model information in the hands of individuals with a political agenda and suddenly you have one of the most powerful propaganda advancement tools ever created. The ability to time the release of critical information and manage how the general public reacts to it.
The official line from the White House, the State Department, and the Pentagon about the US response to the attack on our consulate in Benghazi has been that we didn’t have time to send in troops to fight the terrorists that were killing Americans. A new report from Washington Times reporter Rowan Scarborough undermines that argument, and once again raises the question about the lack of response. Two American commandos have received medals for fighting in Benghazi after volunteering to accompany five security contractors from Tripoli, and Scarborough wonders why the US didn’t mobilize other forces at the same time:
This is what is and has been going on with Benghazi and Operation Fast and Furious. A combination of slow dribbling out of information, then flurries of stories. Build the story up to it’s market saturation point then suddenly push it over the saturation point with the result that the general public ignores the story because they have heard to much saying to little.
Now, combine this strategy with ability to calculate the duration of a stories life expectancy and you have the ability to calculate when to release critically important information in such a way that the general public is exhausted by the story before that story can have serious political ramifications. Break a scandal 18 months before a election takes place, reach over-saturation 6 months before the election and the story will have no significant impact on that election cycle.
Fear not, you millions of Americans now receiving insurance policy cancellation notices in the mail: Your anger and bewilderment has not fallen upon deaf ears. In his speech in Boston this afternoon, President Obama munificently took the time to explain to any such Americans how it was not, in fact, his own now infamous promise that “If you like your plan, you can keep it” that misled people, because hey, insurance companies are still offering plans you can buy in their place! They might be more expensive, sure, but the good news is that they will no longer be “substandard.” According to The One, that is.
Video: White House intimidating insurers into staying quiet on the ObamaCare debacle?
It could be worse, as Audrey Hudson can tell you. All these insurers are getting are phone calls, not raids by the Maryland State Police seizing their notes on government malfeasance. CNN’s Anderson Cooper reports that the insurers want to get the real story out about why millions of people will have their policies cancelled, and how they tried to warn HHS of this unnecessary outcome. For now, they’re outsourcing the job to Robert Laszewski (via Daniel Halper):
The 2014 midterm elections are coming up and the strategy being employed by the Mainstream Media in concert with the Obama Administration is in full swing. Begin the slow dribbling of damaging information on Obamacare and Benghazi, build it up to it’s market over-saturation crescendo and ensure that it does as little damage politically to the Democrats as possible. Repeat the process again just before the 2016 presidential election and ensure that Hillary Clinton is immunized from any political fallout from either Obamacare or Benghazi. Scandals which if Hillary Clinton were a Republican would absolutely guarantee that she would never even make it out of the Presidential Primaries.
Yes, sorry to break it to you, but this is exactly how you are being manipulated.
(Cross Posted@ The Wilderness of Mirrors)
Edit: (updated with links added)
Everyone still drawing breath with two functional braincells knows that Bill and Hillary Clinton are totally amoral political opportunist scumbags. From Bill’s “What the definition of “Is is”” to Hillary’s “At this point what difference does it make” their contemptuous disregard for ethics and morality is the stuff legends are made out of.
Just when you think that a President and his wife who was once impeached for having extra marital sexual affairs in the Oval Office couldn’t possibly be any more hypocritical they prove that they in fact can.
I can’t believe anyone, especially people as politically savvy as Billary, think a guy like Weiner who’ll be a distant memory come 2016 poses any serious problem for the Clinton machine. The annoyance here likely derives from the stature gap between the two couples, the way the royal family might be annoyed to be called “Britain’s Kardashians.” As Dave Weigel said last week, the Weiners are to the Clintons as “Sharknado” is to “Jaws”: Fun in their own pathetically tawdry way, but really just a hollow, farcical imitation.
“The Clintons are upset with the comparisons that the Weiners seem to be encouraging — that Huma is ‘standing by her man’ the way Hillary did with Bill, which is not what she in fact did,’’ said a top state Democrat.
Weiner and his campaign aides have explicitly referred to the Clintons as they privately seek to convince skeptical Democrats that voters can back Weiner despite his online sexual antics — just as they supported then-President Bill Clinton in the face of repeated allegations of marital betrayals.
“The Clintons are pissed off that Weiner’s campaign is saying that Huma is just like Hillary,’’ said the source. “How dare they compare Huma with Hillary? Hillary was the first lady. Hillary was a senator. She was secretary of state.”…
Meanwhile, at least one prominent Hillary Rodham Clinton political operative was described as close to “going public’’ with a sharp criticism of Weiner — in order to send the message that the Clintons, fearing longtime damage to Hillary, want him out of the mayor’s race.
Hey Bill, Hillary… Shut the fuck up…
That’s right, shut the fuck up, you are exactly the same as Anthony and Huma. No difference what so ever. You are moral and ethical reprobates.
Hell, Bill, you are worse than Anthony Weiner, you had sex with an intern in the Oval office, Anthony only sent highly inappropriate pictures to women he was flirting with on twitter. Hillary, not only are you exactly the same as Huma, you actually advised Huma on how to deal with and survive her husbands scandal.
The fact that Bill was President of the United States of America instead of a mere Senator does not elevate Bill to some grander station, it only proves that he is a bigger scumbag.
(Cross Posted@ The Wilderness of Mirrors)
I guess not as it appears that “creepiness” is their main attraction.
by Andrew Klavan
It’s never a good idea to judge another person’s sexual peccadilloes too harshly. Illicit sex is a crime for which, given the opportunity, all of us have the motive. Thus today’s fire-and-brimstone preacher of morality is often tomorrow’s guy-arrested-in-a-Motel-6-handcuffed-to-a-male-stripper. Better to follow the great wisdom of the West in these matters: Let he that is without sin—namely no one—cast the first stone. Or, if you prefer Shakespeare: “Shame to him whose cruel striking/kills for faults of his own liking.”
Having said all that: What kind of creep-fest are New Yorkers staging this election, for crying out loud? As I’m hearing it out on the West Coast, the lead candidate for mayor is a guy who tweeted pictures of his dingus to various women and then publicly lied about it, and the comptroller race is between a whoremonger and the madam who supplied him. Really? The YMCA used to have a slogan: “Character counts.” In New York from now on, you ought to add, “For nothing.”
The madam is a libertarian and, as I understand it, a bit of a joke. But the dingus-tweeter, disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner, and the hooker boy, disgraced former governor Eliot Spitzer, both Democrats, are considered serious candidates. That makes sense, I guess. The Democrats are the party that celebrated Teddy Kennedy as the Lion of the Senate, even after he drove his likely mistress into the drink and left her to drown. This is the party of a president who carried on a sleazy Oval Office affair with a woman half his age and had his minions slander and intimidate other women who plausibly accused him of rape and grotesque sexual harassment. [.......]
Of course, the GOP has its share of sexual rogues and clowns. South Carolina governor Mark Sanford spent taxpayer dollars while carrying on an extramarital affair in Argentina and then (which is worse in my book) cried about it—and yet he still made a successful comeback run for Congress. Congressman Mark Foley took strong action against child pornography when he wasn’t sending sexually suggestive e-mails to underage male pages. And who could forget Senator Larry Craig, whose “wide stance” in an airport men’s room stall got him accused of trying to pick up the undercover cop one stall over? [......]
On average, it seems to me, Republicans punish sexual transgressors more harshly, and certainly the left-wing media is relentlessly one-sided in the matter. Sanford, Foley, and Craig got no media quarter on the one hand, whereas on the other, Newsweek actually tried to bury the Clinton affair story, filmmakers turned out the documentary Client 9 to try to soft-soap Spitzer’s whoring, and NBC’s Today show brought on “experts” during the Weiner scandal to advise us to stop being so “puritanical” and get over it.
Should we get over it, I wonder? Is New York’s current Creep-Off election a token of the city’s sophistication, a harbinger of the end of the republic, or something in between?
Conscious of our own frailties, none of us should rush to play the puritan, it’s true. The so-called “character issue” that so-called journalists are always yammering about largely strikes me as a flimsy excuse to pornographize the news with straight faces. Any way you rationalize it, a humiliated spouse, a disgruntled paramour, even heartbroken children are really none of the public’s business. Judged individually, many sex scandals come to seem irrelevant after the first shock of contempt passes. Much as I dislike Anthony Weiner politically, he doesn’t seem to have broken any laws, and the worst that can be said about Bill Clinton’s proven indiscretions is that they demonstrate what a second-rate JFK he was even when it came to philandering.
And yet, in a larger sense, a society devoid of sexual shame is one in which the powerful are free to prey upon the weak for pleasure. [.......]There really is such a thing as being too sophisticated, too laissez-faire. Even worse is the cynicism that glosses over gross personal abuses to pursue political goals. I never once looked at Teddy Kennedy after Chappaquiddick without thinking of a 28-year-old campaign worker pounding helplessly on the window of a submerged Oldsmobile while the rich, powerful senator who put her there walked away with few consequences. Lion of the Senate, my eye!
Likewise, as I look at the New York Creep-Off from afar, I can’t help but question the great city’s wisdom. It’s not that people like Weiner and Spitzer should be hounded and condemned for their mistakes indefinitely. Let them go about their business. Truly, let them thrive. But when it comes to choosing leaders, can the city really find no one better? It’s a representative government, after all. Why can’t New Yorkers find someone who represents them at their best?
Read the rest – New York’s Creep-Off Election
Not just a mental disorder, but a full-blown pandemic. Here’s what artist Jon McNaughton has to say:
We have a disease. It’s infecting every aspect of our society and it’s time we did something about it.
Some of these people I really like and some I don’t, but for the sake of our health, our children and our sanity, we need to take drastic action quickly.
What if we could bring them all together, put them on a desert island and quarantine them for say a hundred years?
They believe they have all the answers to everything. But every liberal idea I’ve ever seen has led to total failure. If they were right, their new island home would be a utopia before long.
Let’s look at the most liberal communities in the country. New York City, Detroit, Chicago…how are they doing?
Yes, I say let’s quarantine them and let nature take its course.
Read the rest.
Is this wishful thinking, or can something truly be done about what liberalism has done to our country and to the world?
website design was Built By David